"A

Complete and
Comprehensive Overview
of Torrefaction
Technologies"
R. A. WALTON and DRS ING B. G. VAN BOMMEL
DECEMBER 2010

Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Introduction / History ........................................................................................................................ 5
Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 5
History ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Patents published or pending regarding Torrefaction of Biomass (incomplete): .......................... 6
Definitive Description of Torrefied Biomass Pellets ........................................................................ 15
Calorific Value .............................................................................................................................. 16
Grindability .................................................................................................................................. 17
Hydrophobicity ............................................................................................................................ 19
Durability ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Chemical Composition / Homogeneity ........................................................................................ 20
Van Krevelen Diagram of Torrefaction ............................................................................................ 21
The Science of Torrefaction ............................................................................................................. 22
Economics of Torrefaction / Ultimate Product Cost .................................................................... 25
Technology Developers / Promoters ............................................................................................... 27
4Energy Invest ............................................................................................................................. 30
3R Agrocarbon ............................................................................................................................. 30
Agri-Tech ...................................................................................................................................... 30
Argonaut Bioenergy ..................................................................................................................... 31
Atmosclear / Airless Systems ....................................................................................................... 31
Biochar Engineering Corporation ................................................................................................ 32
Biogreen Energy ........................................................................................................................... 32
Biomass Energy Holdings ............................................................................................................. 32
Biomass Energy Resources .......................................................................................................... 33
BTG .............................................................................................................................................. 33
Canadian Bio-Coal ........................................................................................................................ 34
Chemmeco Inc. ............................................................................................................................ 34
Cockerill Maintenance and Ingenierie ......................................................................................... 34
CNF Biofuels ................................................................................................................................. 35
Cree Industries ............................................................................................................................. 35
DGEngineering ............................................................................................................................. 36
Earth Care .................................................................................................................................... 36
EBES AG /Andritz ......................................................................................................................... 36

2 | P a g e

 ECN .............................................................................................................................................. 37
EcoFuels ....................................................................................................................................... 37
Foxcoal ......................................................................................................................................... 38
G & R Technology Group ............................................................................................................. 38
Gazprom ...................................................................................................................................... 38
Hi-Tech Agro ................................................................................................................................ 39
HM3 ............................................................................................................................................. 39
IFP ................................................................................................................................................ 39
Integro Earth Fuels ...................................................................................................................... 40
International Torrefaction Systems ............................................................................................. 40
J F Biocarbon ................................................................................................................................ 40
Key Flame .................................................................................................................................... 41
Lantec / Idema ............................................................................................................................. 41
Matric .......................................................................................................................................... 41
New Biomass Energy ................................................................................................................... 42
New Earth Renewable Energy ..................................................................................................... 42
Renewable Fuel Technologies ..................................................................................................... 43
River Basin Energy ....................................................................................................................... 43
Rotawave ..................................................................................................................................... 43
Sea2Sky Corporation ................................................................................................................... 44
Stramproy-Green ......................................................................................................................... 44
SubCoal ........................................................................................................................................ 45
SunCoal ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Terradyne Energy ......................................................................................................................... 45
Terra Green Energy ...................................................................................................................... 46
Thermogen Industries .................................................................................................................. 46
Thermya SA .................................................................................................................................. 46
TK Energi AS ................................................................................................................................. 47
Topell ........................................................................................................................................... 47
Torkapparater AB ........................................................................................................................ 47
Torrcoal ........................................................................................................................................ 48
Torrsys / Bepex ............................................................................................................................ 48
Transnational Technologies ......................................................................................................... 49
Vega Promotional Systems .......................................................................................................... 49

3 | P a g e

 Verdant Energy Solutions ............................................................................................................ 49
Complimentary Technologies .......................................................................................................... 50
University Researchers .................................................................................................................... 51
Industry Associations ....................................................................................................................... 52
Existing Operations Worldwide ....................................................................................................... 53
Europe ......................................................................................................................................... 53
North America ............................................................................................................................. 53
Who will succeed? ....................................................................................................................... 53
Who will fail? ............................................................................................................................... 54
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 55
GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................... 55
References ................................................................................................................................... 56
Post Script ........................................................................................................................................ 56
About the Authors ....................................................................................................................... 56

4 | P a g e

Abstract

At present, the Wood Pellet market is about 13 million tonnes per year, of which Europe consumed
more than 8 million tonnes. This was produced at some 400+ pellet mills, which are the “add-on”
market for the torrefaction reactor technology suppliers or developers.

New projections of several institutes, (AEBIOM, DEPV, Pellet Atlas etc,) market analysis providers
(Rotterdam Port, Argus Biomass, Forest Energy Monitor etc) and EU-power companies ( RWE,
Vattenfall, Electrabel etc) have made predictions that in 2020, this market will be about 130 million
tonnes per year, a 10 fold increase from what it is today. This means a sustained, strong growth of
20% year, which is also a Greenfield opportunity for many starters in the solid biomass fuel business,
including torrefaction technology providers and companies.

Introduction / History

Overview

Global Energy demand is forecast to increase dramatically over the next decades, and given the
concerns surrounding the use of Fossil Fuels, solutions are desperately needed. Biomass is currently
the worlds 4th most important source of Energy. Photosynthesis stores about 8 times as much Energy
annually in Biomass than is consumed globally from all sources of Energy, and could therefore
conceivably become the main source of Energy. There are however significant hurdles to overcome
to make Biomass a much more significant part of the Energy Solution. First, sustainability and
potential competition with Food crops are high on that list, but also the fact that Biomass has a
relatively low energy density, high moisture content and that especially woody biomass is very
fibrous and tough - which makes it difficult to handle, transport and ultimately use as Fuel for Power
Stations. The challenge is to make Biomass a homogenous, friable, sustainable fuel with low
moisture content, increased Energy density and low particle emissions. Scientists the world over
have been looking for solutions to these problems for some time, and the Torrefaction of Biomass
has emerged as the most promising method of conditioning Biomass while increasing energy
density, vastly improving hydrophobicity, reducing the mass of the biomass without losing energy
content and creating a product that is still able to be pelletized, vital for transport across great
distances.

History

The partial decomposition of Biomass, mainly wood, at high temperatures in the absence of Oxygen
to create a Fuel of high Energy density has been practised by humans for 1000’s of years. This
traditional way to carbonize Wood (pyrolysis) however takes the wood far beyond the narrow
perimeters which define it as an ideal fuel. Experiments were made to improve the characteristics of

5 | P a g e

the fuel, and much was learned from the Torrefaction of Coffee and Roots as Coffee substitute.
Torrefaction is similar to Pyrolysis, but is conducted at much lower Temperatures. While
Torrefaction was used for Coffee production or the production of Coffee substitutes such as Chicory
as far back as the 17th Century, it was adapted to facilitate the Conversion of Biomass for Fuel not
until the early 20th Century.

Currently, there are close to 100 patents and/or patents pending relating to the Torrefaction of
Biomass, the first dating back to the 15th of January 1901.

Patents published or pending regarding Torrefaction of Biomass (incomplete):

Reference # Date Title Inventor

CH20332 15/01/1901 Four de séchage et de Albert Comte Dillon

Torréfaction de Michero

FR538040 02/06/1922 Appareil de séchage et de Fortin Pierre-Honore

Torréfaction

FR574507 12/07/1924 Appareil de Torréfaction Scrive Paul

FR29060 20/05/1925 Appareil de Torréfaction Scrive Paul

FR686708 30/07/1930 Four rotative à axe incliné pour le Beau Alfred

séchage, la Torréfaction et la

cuisson des matériaux minéraux
ou organiques

FR39349 12/10/1931 Four rotative à axe incliné pour le Beau Alfred

séchage, la Torréfaction et la
cuisson des matériaux minéraux
ou organiques

6 | P a g e

CH153757 15/04/1932 Four à tambour rotative à axe Etablissements Poliet
incliné pour le séchage, la Chausson
Torréfaction et la cuisson des
matériaux minéraux et organiques

FR839732 11/04/1939 Perfectionnements aux fours a Bouteille Joseph

torréfier le bois

US2159027 23/05/1939 Process and apparatus for roasting Jalma Michael M,

Henri Coutinho

BE444413 09/02/1942 Perfectionnement apportés aux Seneze Marcel

procédés d’agglomeration de
métiers combustibles, notamment
pour gazogènes

FR872164 01/06/1942 Procédé d’agglomération de Bethenod Joseph,

produis obtenus avec du pois Bouteille Joseph,
torréfié e analogues Koehler Marcel

FR886071 04/10/1943 Systeme de carbonisation, de Brisset Alfred

séchage et de torréfaction des
bois, et dispositif pour la mis en
oeuvre du systeme

FR906950 25/02/1946 Procédé de traitement thermique Manson Isak

des matiéres végétales en vue de
leur séchage, torréfaction ou
distillation

7 | P a g e

FR933026 08/04/1946 Procédé d’obtention de
combustibles, de lubrifiants et de
produits divers à la aide de
matières ligno-cellulosiques

FR953004 29/11/1949 Procédé de traitement du bois en Pinel Adrien

vue de l‘ obtention, par
agglomération, d produits moulés

FR976640 20/03/1951 Procédé et installation pour le Dumesnil André

séchage, la torréfaction, la
carbonisation, la distillation du
bois, de la tourbe, et toutes autre
matières

FR977529 02/04/1951 Procédé et Appareil pour séchage, Santenoy Gaston-

torréfaction de bois ou autre Francisque
matières ligneuses

FR993131 26/10/1951 Perfectionnement apportés aux Barrier Henri

procédés de fabrication d’
agglomérés combustibles et aux
appareils de moulage utilisés

FR55506E 01/09/1952 Perfectionnements aux fours à Bouteille Joseph

torréfié le bois

US 3950143 13/04/1976 Process for producing solid Pyle

Industrial Fuel

8 | P a g e

DE3041627 09/06/1982 Verfahren zum Aufbereiten von Greul Arthur Richard
Zellulosehaltigen Biomassen bzw.
Braunkohle und Lignit zu einem
einheitlichen, stark
reaktionsfähigem Staubförmigen
Brennstoff

FR2512053 01/09/1982 Process for the transformation of Schwob Yvan

cellulosic material by roasting, and
product obtained by said process

DE3211590 13/10/1983 Process and equipment for the Greul Arthur Richard
bertinisation of Biomass

FR2525231 21/10/1983 Procédé de préparation d’un Schwob Yvan

combustible de nature

Lignoucellulosique et combustible
obtenu

US4787917 04/12/1986 Method for producing Torrefied Leclerc de Bussy

wood, product obtained thereby, Jacques
and application to the production
of Energy

FR2591611 01/01/1987 Thermally condensed ligno- Bourgeois Jean-Paul

cellulose material, process and
oven for obtaining it

DE3721006 22/12/1988 Apperatus for low Temperatur Völskow Peter

pyrolysis of Biomass

FR2624876 23/06/1989 Methode and Device for the Gerard Roger,

Torrefaction of Vegetable Cimetiere Jean Paul

9 | P a g e

 Ligneous Material

DE19614689 16/10/1997 Process and apparatus for de- Bauknecht

oiling oil and grease containing Maximilian, Lutze
materials Hans

FR2757097 06/10/1999 Apparatus and process for the Unternahrer Roland

heat treatment of lignocellulosic
Chautemps Cyrille
material
Bernon Jean-Pierre

FR9901718 01/27/2000 Reactor for wood retification Guillin Dominique;

FR2786426 02/06/2000 Method of thermal treatment of Bouvier Jean Yves

ligneous- cellulose (wood)
material with elimination of
Oxygen in the gaseous phase

DE19932822 25/01/2001 Device for degassing organic Hochreiter Johann

materials, e.g. wood, comprises
heated pyrolysis Chamber through
which pyrolysis material is
conveyed using screw conveyor
from inlet side to outlet side

US2003221363 04/12/2003 Process and apparatus for making Reed Thomas

a densified, torrefied fuel

NL1025027 21/06/2005 Method and System for the Bergman Peter

torrefaction of materials
Christiaan Alber;

Boersma Arjen

10 | P a g e

 Ragusa;

Zwart Robin Willem;

Rudolph

Kiel Jacob;

Hendrick Arnold

DE102004038730 23/02/2006 Roasting device for plant bulk Lange Stephan;

material and method for
Jansen Gerhard A;
operating a roasting device for
plant bulk material Möller-Willenberg
Uwe

NL1029909 09/03/2007 Werkwijze en inrichting voor het Pels Jan Remmert;

behandelen van Biomassa
Bergman Peter

Christiaan Alber

CN1935941 28/03/2007 Biomass graded temperature LV Fengjie Zhang

control slow pyrolysis process and
it’s system

EP 1969099 09/07/2007 Process and device for treating Bergman Peter

Biomass
Christiaan Alber

US2007220805 27/09/2007 Method for producing a Leveson Philip D.;

homogenous Biomass fuel for
gasification applications Gaus Johann P.;

EP1852491 07/11/2007 Mild pyrolysis of carbon based O’Connor Paul

energy carrier material

11 | P a g e

US2007266623 22/11/2007 Method and apparatus for Paoluccio John A
biomass torrefaction,
manufacturing a storable fuel
from biomass and producing
offsets for the combustion
products of fossil fuels and a
combustible article of
manufacture

NL1032001 17/12/2007 Preparation by torrefaction of a Ruiters Gerard;

solid fuel useful as fuel for coal-
fired power plants, involves Hubert Joseph
heating a starting composition
comprising a secondary recovered
fuel material indirectly at specific

mass temperature

EP2027233 21/12/2007 Method for the preparation of Ruiters Gerard;

solid fuels by means of
Hubert Joseph
torrefaction as well as the solid
fuels thus obtained and the use of
those fuels

FR2903177 03/01/2008 Method and system for roasting a Guyomarc H Raymond

Biomass feedstock

CN201015789 02/06/2008 Energy saving type formwork Guojiong Si

torrefaction carriage

US20080223269 18/09/2008 Method and apparatus for Paoluccio, John A

biomass torrefaction using
conduction heating

US20080263891 30/10/2008 Process for treating lignocellulosic Brunet Andre

material, and apparatus to carry
out the same

12 | P a g e



EP1990399 12/11/2008 Method for the treatment of the Cox Constantijn

empty fruit bunch (EFB) material
of Palm Oil Trees, particulate
torrefied EFB product and use of
such product as auxiliary fuel in a
power plan

WO2009124286 10/08/2009 Autothermal and mobile Hopkins, Christopher

torrefaction devices B;

Johnson John E;

GB2009001672 07/07/2010 Microwave torrefaction of Budarin, Vitaliy,

biomass Lvovich;

Milkowsky, Krzysztof,
Jakub;

Shuttleworth, Peter;

Lanigan, Brigid;

Clark, James, Hanley;

Macquarrie, Duncan,
James;

Wilson, Ashley;

US20100083530 08/04/2010 System and method for drying and Weisselberg Edward;
torrefaction
Bevacqua Joseph;

Borre Robert

US20100101141 29/04/2010 Device and method for conversion Schulenberger Arthur

of biomass to biofuel M.;

Wechsler Mark;

13 | P a g e

The first ever known Patent is held by Albert Comte Dillon de Michero, but most modern Reactors
are based on the work of Jacques Leclerc de Bussy, (Method for producing Torrefied wood, product
obtained thereby, and application to the production of Energy).

The Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) is basing their technology on the patents by Peter
Bergman; Agri-Tech Producers use a technology that is virtually identical to the patent by Roger
Gerard, published in 1989, while Torr-Coal is using the process patented by Gerard Ruiters and
Joseph Hubert. In early 2010, Wyssmont patented their Technology (US20100083530, Edward
Weisselberg, Joseph Bevacqua & Robert Borre) by converting their Dryer into a torrefaction reactor,
and earlier that same year the first patent for the torrefaction of biomass using Microwaves was
published.

14 | P a g e



Definitive Description of Torrefied Biomass Pellets

One of the greatest areas of misunderstandings with respect to torrefied wood is exactly what
torrefied wood is. There is a vast array of products that are promoted as TW, but very few that meet
the needs of power stations. Much of the focus has been placed on the Technology, and very little
attention or focus has been placed on the Product. As a consequence – virtually the entire product
available today is less than perfect – in one or many ways.

Torrefied wood is completely desiccated biomass, with devolitilised hemicellulose, which has not yet
reached the point of “char”. That is to say – that pyrolysis, in any form, has not yet commenced.

When the critical surface moisture content of the particle is reached, the evaporation is assumed to
take place inside the particle in the moving front between dry and moist regions. In the next stage
the surface temperature of the particle never exceeds the pyrolysis temperature. In this case, it
means that the drying isotherm reaches the centre of the particle and vanishes before the pyrolysis
isotherm appears at the particle surface.

It is fair to say that TW is best defined by its performance characteristics. There are 5 distinct aspects
that separate it from natural wood, and from charcoal:

1) Calorific Value
2) Grindability
3) Hydrophobicity
4) Durability
5) Chemical Composition/Homogeneity

Each of the above solves one particular drawback that is problematic for Power Stations. By
changing the Physical / Chemical properties of natural wood, a more suitable fuel is created. The
Chemical and physical characteristics, and ultimately their suitability for co-combustion, need to
meet a very narrow band of specifications. Below is one standard that is currently being utilised.
Ultimately – the standard will be set by the Manufacturer’s of Torrefied Wood, as determined by
one specific Utility. That is to say – there is no “Single” definition – as it is specific to the needs of the
end-user.

15 | P a g e



Calorific Value

The essence of any fuel is the ability to be transported long distances. As most Countries are not
blessed with endless supplies of feedstock, in close proximity to urban areas, fuel needs to have as
high an energy density as possible, so that transport costs (whether by Road, rail or ship) are

16 | P a g e

minimised. Natural wood products (forest residues and crop residues) tend to be relatively light and
“fluffy”, and have very low energy densities per unit volume.

The direct relationship between Moisture Content and Calorific Value are shown below.

Net calorific value of biomass vs. moisture

content
22 1600
20
1400
18
Net calorific value GJ/t

16 1200

Density kg/m3
14 1000 Wood Net CV GJ/t
12
800 Miscanthus Net
10 CV GJ/t
8 600 Wheat straw Net
CV GJ/t
6 400 Hardwood density
4 kg/m3
200 Softwood density
2 kg/m3
0 0
0% 5% 10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%
Moisture content

Biomass energy by weight and volume

20.00 5.00
18.00 4.50
16.00 4.00 Wood Net CV GJ/t
Energy density GJ/m3

14.00 3.50
Net CV GJ/t

12.00 3.00 Hardwood chip

10.00 2.50 energy density GJ/m3
8.00 2.00
6.00 1.50 Sovwood chip energy
density GJ/m3
4.00 1.00
2.00 0.50
0.00 0.00

Grindability

As the largest market for torrefied wood is for co-firing with coal, the Bio-Coal needs to exhibit
properties with similar characteristics in terms of Handling and Grinding. Currently, most power

17 | P a g e

stations burn biomass (as mandated under several Carbon Reduction commitments) either in very
low ratios (5-7%) or by completely separate storage, handling, grinding and infeed systems. Ideally,
Bio-Coal would have similar grinding characteristics to fossil coal, so that it could be processed in
existing systems. The most important characteristic is Grindability.

The Hardgrove Grindability Index has been the empirical standard in determination of grindability
since the 1930’s. It measures the relative grindability of coals, to be used in PCI burners. One of the
difficulties with this testing procedure is that different Organisations methods produce commercially
different results. The most significant of these differences is that values using ASTM procedure can
be higher than values using AS procedure on the same sample. Nonetheless, it is a good comparative
measure.

A better comparative measure is the relative grinding energy required to produce similar size
particles to coal. Below is a graph showing the relationship between Torrefied Biomass and Coal:

This graph indicates the Specific Power consumption when milling biomass, dried biomass, torrefied
biomass and coal. For torrefied biomass, the torrefaction temperature (230-270 °C) and the
torrefaction time (32 min) are indicated between brackets. (1)

As you can see, Grindability of torrefied biomass is predominantly a function of process

temperature. Once the feedstock has reached complete desiccation, and the hemicellulose had
been completely devolitilised, any improvement in grindability sacrifices Energy balance as the
Cellulose and lignin start to be affected.

18 | P a g e

The Hardgrove Grindability Index is also influenced by the % of volatile matter contained in the final
product and raw material.

(Chart Courtesy BioTorTech)

Hydrophobicity

Hydrophobicity is a characteristic of Torrefied Biomass, which prevents it from absorbing moisture

when stored outside. The mechanism of Hydrophobicity is a predominantly function of the Volatiles
released during torrefaction. These include H2O, Organics, sugars, polysugars, acids, alcohols,
furans, ketones, Lipids, terpenes, phenols, fatty acids, waxes, and tannin as liquid fractions; and H2,
CO, CO2, CH4- CxHy, toluene and benzene as gas fractions.

The main explanation for Hydrophobicity is that, by the destruction of many OH groups in the
biomass through dehydration reactions, torrefied biomass has lost the capability to form hydrogen
bonding with water. In addition, more unsaturated structures are formed which are non-polar. The
low water content and the hydrophobic nature largely prevent the torrefied product from rotting.

Once the practical threshold has been reached (and this is +/- 6% moisture uptake) there is little to
no benefit to continuing the torrefaction reaction. The cost in terms of energy and mass loss far
exceed the benefit of greater Hydrophobicity.

19 | P a g e

Durability

The third most important characteristic of Torrefied Biomass pellets is their durability. Again, this
characteristic is a function of CV, but is also heavily affected by particle size. For fine powders, the
number of contact points between particles is higher than it would be for large particles;
furthermore, because the finer the powder, the larger it’s exposed surface area; the surface energy
per unit weight also increases with the size reduction of the powder. In a study investigating the
mechanical properties of pellets, it was concluded that particle size had a significant effect on the
pellet density of all feedstocks except for wheat straw.

There is no doubt that an increase in applied pressure will increase the density; however, the
mechanical strength of the pellets is not so easily predicted. Above an optimum pelletising pressure,
fractures may occur in the pellets due to a sudden dilation. For a given die size and storage
condition, there is a maximum die pressure beyond which no significant gain in cohesion (bonding)
of the pellet can be achieved

Lignin is the natural binder (present in all woody biomass) and its concentration is increased during
torrefaction, (to a point). When lignin melts (temperatures above 140°C) it exhibits thermosetting
properties. There is a very well-defined temperature point (265° C), beyond which the lignin starts to
devolitilise. Above this temperature, the lignin starts to devolitilise. By the time 300° C is reached,
regardless of residence time, the lignin has all but completely disappeared, making it virtually
impossible to pelletise the TW without binders.

There is a third factor that enters the equation – and that is Explosion safety in handling. These three
aspects are diametrically opposed:

Smaller particle sizes create a more durable pellet (at any CV) – but increase the explosion hazard of
the dust generated during handling.

Larger particle sizes become increasingly difficult to pelletise as CV increases; but create a lower
explosion hazard, even though the durability is lower (and dust generation is higher).

Higher CV’s, combined with smaller particles create the most dangerous and unstable fuel. Lower
CV’s; with a range of particle sizes provide the optimum solution.

Chemical Composition / Homogeneity

The fourth important characteristic of Torrefied Biomass is its Chemical Composition. While
torrefaction does positively change the Chemical composition of raw biomass; there are some
inorganic constituents that are unaffected. Two of the most problematic are the Elemental
compounds Potassium and Chlorine.

Virtually all biomass contains these elements to one degree or another. Their concentration is
highest in Leaves, needles and Bark. Herbaceous Biomass (Miscanthus, Reed Canary Grass, Elephant
grass, etc) has significantly higher levels than “woody” biomass.

20 | P a g e

 The potassium requirement for optimum plant growth is in the 1-5% dry matter weight range,
depending on species, while the potassium concentration in mature plants generally does not
exceed 2% of dry matter. Potassium is characterized by its high mobility in plants at all levels,
including between individual cells, between tissues, and in long-distance transport within the plant.

Chlorine is a naturally abundant element and is taken up by plants in the form of chloride ion, Cl-.
Chlorine in plants occurs mainly as a free anion or is loosely bound to exchange sites. Similar to
potassium, chloride has high mobility within the plant, and average chlorine content in plants ranges
from 0.2 - 2.0% of dry plant weight.

Occurrence of inorganic constituents in biomass (% dry plant matter)

Constituent Occurrence (%)

Silica 0.5 - 15%

Potassium (a) 1 – 2 %

Calcium (b) 0.1 - 5.0%

Sulphur 0.1 – 0.5%

Chlorine 0.2 - 2.0%

NOTES – (a) In young plant shoots, up to 5% potassium may be found, (b) in mature leaves, calcium
might reach more than 10% (2)

Alkali in the ash of annual crop biomass fuels creates serious fouling and slagging in conventional
boilers. Full-Scale Tests were undertaken at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (USA) to
determine the extent, nature and occurrence of deposits formed from combustion of herbaceous
Biomass. The Results were as follows:

Sintered or fused deposits were found on grates and in agglomerates in Fluidised Beds. Potassium
Sulphates and Chlorides were found condensed on upper furnace walls where it mixed with fly ash.
Convection tubes were coated with Alkali Chlorides, Carbonates and sulphates mixed with Silica and
Alumina.

Needless to say – until such time as an aqueous (solvent) pre-treatment (post treatment) process
can be designed, the utilisation of this feedstock will be avoided at high co-firing ratios.

Van Krevelen Diagram of Torrefaction

Bone Dry Agro-Biomass has an average composition of 42% cellulose, 33% hemicellulose, 22% lignin,
3% ash. The rest is predominantly fats. Compared to Bone Dry Wood-Forestry Biomass it differs
mainly in higher ash content. Elemental non-torrefied biomasses have 45.1%C, 6.0%H, 48.5%O,
0.3%N, and 0.1%S. After Torrefaction (at 270C) the number of O and H atoms ratios is reduced,
through reactions in the hemicellulose decomposition, to 56.5%C, 5.4%H, 36.1%O, 0.9%N and 0.1%S

21 | P a g e

Needless to say, during the torrefaction process the atomic ratio in biomass changes. Expressed in
the of H/C and O/C, resulting value 0.95 H/C and 0.45 O/C (see below).

The Science of Torrefaction

Torrefaction, as a process, is relatively straight forward. It can be defined by a single equation:

Q = k · A · ΔT,

Where Q - the amount of heat passing through the interface per unit time;

k – Heat transfer coefficient, [W/m2K];

A - The heat transfer surface, [m2];

ΔT – Temperature gradient, [K] (3)

It is further defined by the following Graphic:

22 | P a g e

 (4)

23 | P a g e

Finally – the process is defined by the following Graph:

(5)

Based on the above, it would appear that Torrefaction is a relatively slow and gradual process. In
reality – there are two schools of thought on this.

1) That the process can be undertaken very rapidly, at the upper end of the torrefaction
temperature regime.
OR
2) That the process can be undertaken relatively slowly, at the lower end of the torrefaction
temperature regime.

The choice of which process to undertake becomes, in reality, a question of the type and quality of
the volatiles that are driven off. The current Torrefaction “leader” (Topell) has a system that
undertakes the process in less than 2 minutes; at 300° C. this is currently the ONLY batch process
that attempts to achieve this in such a short time period. The great challenge with this process is
that it relies on relatively consistent particle shape and size to perform optimally. Devolatilisation is

24 | P a g e

affected by 2 aspects – Time and Temperature. However – these variables do not have the same
effect. A large increase in time, for any given temperature, will have small effect. A large increase in
temperature, for any given time, will have significant effect. There is the real risk of “over
processing” some pieces and “under processing” others with such a rapid and harsh temperature /
airflow regime. As these temperatures are well into the pyrolysis range – smaller particles are likely
to be pyrolized, rather than torrefied.

On the other hand, a lower temperature (250° C) regime requires a much longer residence time
(typically – 30 minutes) but has the net-effect of complete and thorough torrefaction – without the
issue of pyrolysis being initiated. Essentially – once the particle reaches its torrefaction temperature
– further devolatilisation does not continue. In this way – a broad range of feedstock shapes and
sizes can be accommodated – without the concern for over or under processing.

The third factor that enters the equation is the relative amounts of condensable and non-
condensable gasses that are evolved during torrefaction. It is well documented that the higher the
temperature – the more “liquid” fraction is produced. As the entire process depends on the evolved
combustible gasses to provide process energy – it is best to create as many combustible, non-
condensable gasses as possible.

Each different feedstock has a different chemical make-up, and a very specific set of process
parameters. Even wood chips of softwood differ enough from hardwood chips to require slight
modifications in process parameters. (Mostly as a function of their relative Xylan content)

Economics of Torrefaction / Ultimate Product Cost

The generally accepted threshold for torrefaction Technology is €500,000.00 per tonne-hour of
production capacity. That is to say – a 5 tonne per hour (40 kilotonne per year) reactor should cost
no more than €2.5 million. This price is still significantly lower than the vast majority of Systems
currently on the market. Of course – several other parameters affect the equation. These are:

1) Process efficiency.
a. Energy consumption is a major cost in any pellet manufacturing process, and
represents up to 8% of the overall cost. The key to torrefaction – is to create a
process that is able to utilise all of the energy driven off to feed the process. In a
perfect world – this would require a supplemental energy of 10% of the feedstock to
balance out the Energy requirements.
2) Feedstock Conversion / Cost.
a. Many systems require 3 or even 4 tonnes of feedstock to produce 1 tonne of
finished product. (Although – at that level it is more likely Bio-Char rather than Bio-
Coal). With free, or virtually free infeed product – this is of no consequence –
however, the reality is that there is a cost associated with the feedstock, and long-

25 | P a g e

 term supplies of low-cost feedstock will not be sustainable. As the demand for
Biomass grows globally – upward pressure on prices will stabilise at “Commodity”
values, rather than “Spot Market” values. Consequently – any supply chain that does
not address this is destined to failure very rapidly. One only has to look at the
initiatives being undertaken by RWE (Georgia); Electrabel (British Columbia); etc. to
appreciate that access to feedstock, on a long-tem supply contract is one of the key
ingredients to success.
3) Distance to market.
a. One supply chain model (PGE – Boardman) specifies a Torrefaction facility close to
the point of consumption, utilising locally grown feedstock. The finished product is
then utilised in the Power Plant, which is a short distance from the facility. This
model certainly optimises the supply chain Logistics, and costs, which would allow
for a more Capital Intensive installation.
b. A second supply chain model specifies sourcing low-cost feedstocks from Distant
lands (South America; Australasia, etc.) and exploits the economic savings made
through lower operating overheads and the increased mass and energy density of
the finished product.
4) Operating costs.
a. Operating costs (labour) represent less than 3% of the overall cost of production.
There is certainly a benefit to locating the facility in an area of lower wages and
taxes, however – these typically carry the penalty of greater transport costs.

Generally Speaking – the cost breakdown for a supply chain from Southeast Asia to Europe is as
follows: (Expressed as a percentage of finished product sell value)

Feedstock – 44%
Transport – 21%
Capital Cost / Carrying cost – 10%
Operating Labour – 3%
Utilities – 3%
Royalties – 7%
Other – 1%

This provides for a gross margin of 10%, which is the minimum reasonable return that could be
expected.

Much has been said about the “value” of Torrefied Biomass. Prices range from the ridiculously low
(<€100.00 per tonne) to the ridiculously high (>€400.00 per tonne). There are those that insist that
“substitutionary” costs should be included in the value of Torrefied Fuel. That is to say – when
considering the overall value – one needs to look at the savings made, through not spending huge
sums on Material handling and storage facilities (as you would with whitewood pellets) as well as
the “avoidance” of taxes and levy’s imposed as a consequence of not introducing a renewable fuel
into the fossil fuel supply.

Certainly – there are significant benefits to torrefied Biomass, however – these are the Reasons for
its desirability, and not justification to pay more than a baseline price. That is to say, no matter what,

26 | P a g e

Utility Companies will pay “Coal plus Carbon” value for the product. Otherwise – it is simply more
economical to burn Coal, and pay the Environmental Levies; Renewable Obligation Levies, Climate
Change Levies, etc.

In today’s market – That price is €165.00 per tonne, CIF ARA. This translates into a cost of +/-€7.00
per Gj. The current Market for Whitewood pellets (November, 2010) is €110.00 per tonne CIF, ARA
(€6.21/Gj). This price is lower than the historical average – and reflects the current glut of product
on the market. Inevitably – it will increase over time. Projections for 2011 indicate a level of
€128.00/tonne (€7.23/Gj) for Whitewood pellets – which would be €165.00 for Torrefied Pellets.

Technology Developers / Promoters

Company Location Principal Website

4Energy Invest Belgium Yves Crits http://www.4energyinvest.com/

3R Agrocarbon Hungary Edward Someus http://www.3ragrocarbon.com/

Agri-Tech USA Joseph J. James http://www.agri-techproducers.com/

Alterna Biocarbon Canada Leonard Legault http://alternabiocarbon.com/

Airless Systems Latvia Duncan Kiel http://www.airless-systems.co.uk/

Argonaut Bioenergy USA Scott Dixon http://www.argonautbioenergy.com/s
ervices.html
Biochar Engineering USA Jim Fournier http://www.biocharsystems.com/
Corporation
Biogreen Energy France Mr Olivier Lepez http://www.biogreen-
energy.com/appli.html
Biomass Energy USA Mr. Irwin Katso http://www.biomassenergyholdings.n
Holdings et/
Biomass Energy USA Charles Cotter http://www.biomassenergyresources.
Resources com/

BTG Netherlands http://www.btg-btl.com/index2.php

Canadian Bio-Coal Canada John Bennett http://canadian-biocoal.com/

Chemmeco Inc. Indonesia Tara FK http://cmc-indo.blogspot.com/
Cockerill Maintenance Didier Leboutte http://www.cmigroupe.com/nesa/fsol
and Ingenierie .html
CNF Biofuels USA John Paoluccio http://www.cnfbiofuel.com/

Cree Industries USA John Olsen http://www.creeind.com/

DGEngineering Germany Klaus Limberg http://www.dgengineering.de/Rotary-

27 | P a g e

 Kiln-Processes-Torrefication.html
Earth Care USA Andrew http://www.ecpisystems.com/wcms/i
Livingston ndex.php?Torrefaction

EBES AG /Andritz Austria Michael Wild http://www.ebes.at/

ECN Netherlands J. H. A. Kiel http://www.ecn.nl/home/

EcoFuels USA Allen Sharpe http://ecofuelsinc.net/about/

Foxcoal Netherlands Walter http://www.foxcoal.nl/
Nonnekes

G & R Technology Germany Reinhard Lehner http://www.grgmbh.de/
Group

Gazprom / Thailand Adrian Boodt http://www.gazprom-mt.com/
International Forest
Products

Hi-Tech Agro India Abhay Khater http://www.hitechagro.org/default.as
px
HM3 USA Hiroshi http://hm3e.com/index.php
Morihara
IFP France Jean-Pascal http://www.ifp.com/l-ifp/l-ifp-en-bref
Dejean
Integro Earth Fuels USA Walt Dickenson http://www.integrofuels.com/

International USA http://internationaltorrefaction.com/
Torrefaction Systems
J F Biocarbon Canada John Flottvik http://cmc-
indo.blogspot.com/2010/07/jf-
biocarbon-carbon-chemmeco-
from.html
Key Flame USA Jacob Rheuben http://www.keyflame.com/

Lantec / Idema Spain D. Roman http://www.lantec-ing.com/
Monasterio
Larrinaga
Magnolia BioPower LLC USA John Swan http://www.magnoliabiopower.com/

Matric - Mid Atlantic USA http://www.cpac.washington.edu/Acti
Technology Research vities/SI/SI10/Presentations/Tuesday/
and Innovation Centre Pauley_SI_2010.pdf
http://www.matricresearch.com/
New Biomass Energy USA Irwin Katso http://www.newbiomass.com/
New Earth Renewable USA Ahava Amen http://www.newearth1.net/
Energy

Renewable Fuel USA Mark Wechsler http://renewablefueltech.wordpress.c
Technologies om/

28 | P a g e

River Basin Energy USA Dianne Wyss http://www.riverbasinenergy.com/

Rotawave UK Bob Rooney http://www.rotawave.com/

Sea2Sky Corporation USA Eric Odeen http://www.sea2skyenergy.com/

Spirajoule France http://www.spirajoule.com/

Stramproy-Green Netherlands Ijsbrand Galema http://www.stramproy.nl/

SubCoal Netherlands Mohammed http://www.qlyte.com/
Nafid
SunCoal Germany http://www.suncoal.de/en/home/
Terradyne Energy USA Mark Lowe http://terradyneenergy.com/ready.sw
f

Terra Green Energy USA Thomas Causer http://www.terragreenenergy.com/

Thermogen Industries USA Bob Payne http://thermogenind.com/index.html

Thermya SA France Herve Chauvin http://www.thermya.com/en/index_t
hermya.php?id=6#

TK Energi AS Denmark Thomas Koch http://www.tke.dk/TKE_simple.asp?p
ageid=99
Topell Netherlands Ewout http://www.topell.nl/
Maaskant
Torkapparater AB Sweden Ulf Bojner http://www.torkapparater.se/

Torrcoal Netherlands Roger Ruiters http://www.torrcoal.com/

Torrproc USA Robert Brown http://torrproc.com/
Torrsys / Bepex USA Kevin Grotheim http://www.torrsys.com/

Transnational USA James Arcate http://www.techtp.com/
Technologies

Vega Promotional USA Michael K. www.vegabiofuels.com
Systems Molen


Verdant Energy USA Chris Pollatos http://www.verdantenergysolutions.c
Solutions om/

29 | P a g e



4Energy Invest

“4Energy Invest is a Belgian based renewable energy company that aims at creating and managing a
portfolio of small to middle-sized locally embedded projects that valorise biomass, directly or
indirectly, into energy.

The core business of 4Energy Invest consists in turning non-contaminated wood biomass, which are
at their end-of-life in the forestry sector, into energy, either directly through cogeneration to
generate heat and electricity, or indirectly through torrefaction to produce renewable solid fuels such
as BioCoal.”

4Energy Invests’ current operations relied heavily on the commercialisation of the Stramproy Green
Technology for their operations. In June 2010, after failing to Commission the Torrefaction Reactor
at Amel, the EPC Contract with S/G was terminated. 4Energy are now looking for a solution.

3R Agrocarbon

“The 3R Environmental Technology Group is a Swedish initiative in technology Research, technical

Development and industrial Engineering for the management of products & Services for Eco-Industry
and Agriculture in the rapidly developing and growing EU and USA Bio-Economy and Eco-Industrial
Markets.

The 3R Technology is one of the world leaders in applied scientific development and industrial
engineering design of thermal desorption, pyrolysis and low temperature carbonisation
technologies.”

This technology is Pyrolysis, and not torrefaction, as it applies to the production of Power Station
fuels.

Agri-Tech

“Agri-Tech are manufacturing torrefaction machines, through our partnership with Kusters Zima
Corporation (KZC), and are both selling such equipment to a variety of customers, as well
as deploying torrefaction equipment in projects of their own and in certain joint-ventures.

In addition to producing and selling torrefaction equipment, ATP intends to develop and operate a
few torrefaction-based processing plants, in conjunction with key strategic partners. ATP intends to
become involved in the planting and harvesting of high-density bio-crops, which can be treated by its
torrefaction process. In addition, ATP will continue to explore the creation of mobile torrefaction
equipment, thanks to a grant from the U. S. Department of Energy, as well as explore ways in which
its torrefaction process can promote economic development and job creation in distressed rural

30 | P a g e

communities. ATP can also produce a biochar, for soil enhancement purposes, and a cooking fuel, for
the Third-World, which can reduce de-forestation pressures.”

ATP has demonstrated technology developed at North Carolina State University by Dr. Chris
Hopkins. It is based on a Multi-screw feeder, encased inside a second heating chamber. Hot air
circulating through the outer chamber heats the inner chamber walls – where the wood chips come
in contact with it, causing the torrefaction reaction.

At 40% moisture content (raw feedstock) the Reactor requires 3 tonnes (or more) of raw biomass to
produce 1 tonne of torrefied wood. This results in a conversion efficiency of 55.5% (1.8 BDT
feedstock generates 1 BDT Torrefied Wood). At this conversion rate – only the lowest cost feedstock
would allow for financial viability. At average “market rates” ($50.00/BDT) the feedstock cost would
be virtually 100% of the finished fuel value – i.e. $150.00/tonne ex works. Estimated cost for the
Torrefaction system is US$3 Million for 5 tonnes per hour.

Argonaut Bioenergy

“Argonaut was founded in 2006 to address an extreme supply and demand imbalance present within
the wood pellet industry. Despite nearly one million tons of additional capacity coming online in the
past 3 years, this imbalance still exists.”

Argonaut Bioenergy has been very active in the development of whitewood pellets, and is currently
including torrefaction in their R&D Efforts. To date, there is no indication of Commercial Installation
Development.

Atmosclear / Airless Systems

“Airless Systems offers a range of industrial services that include torrefaction, carbonization and
airless drying. Torrefaction is the process by which an object is dried off using heat, removing volatile
materials in it simultaneously. The torrefaction process by Airless Systems can be used in the
production of BioCoal.

BioCoal, an enhanced wood fuel, can be used for home, industrial and commercial applications. It can
be used along with pulverized coal for the generation of electricity. With the help of the torrefaction
technique utilized by Airless Systems, a moisture content of 3 per cent can be achieved. The BioCoal
produced retains 90 per cent of its original energy and has a 30 per cent reduction in its overall mass.
The heating value of the BioCoal has been calculated at 22,560kJ/kg.

The BioCoal from Airless Systems can be utilized as a feedstock for the production of other biofuels.
Municipal and local grids can use it for the generation of electricity through a direct gasification
method. For applications in the home, commercial and industrial sectors, the BioCoal is used in the
form of pellets or briquettes. An advantage of this product is that it can be pulverized according to
the requirements of the application.”

31 | P a g e

Atmosclear Airless Systems are currently building a reactor in Latvia. Like most other developers –
they are struggling with the issue of tar evolution, and have approached this by engaging the “best
Flue-gas management Company in the World”. Undoubtedly this strategy will ultimately succeed in
producing the desired end product. However – the economics of such a system may make the costs
prohibitive.

Biochar Engineering Corporation

“BEC founders include one of the world's preeminent experts on biomass gasification and our CEO
has been in biochar for over five years. We understand the full spectrum of thermal conversion
approaches from torrefaction, pyrolysis, updraft and downdraft gasification to fluidized beds and fast
pyrolysis.”

As their information states, they are experts in the field of Pyrolysis and Bio-Char. Their main focus is
on transportable (Containerised) systems, to be implemented on a decentralised basis. The
Technology is classic pyrolysis, and would not be suitable for Torrefaction, as the Feedstock
conversion rate puts it out of the realm of economic sensibility.

Biogreen Energy

“Biogreen can be used for biomass torrefaction, among other treatments. Torrefaction is one of the
ways to create densification of the energy contained within a product. Treatment is achieved within a
few minutes at 200°C to 300°C in an anaerobic environment. Biomass will lose weight (around 30%),
and become crumbly. This prepares it to be crushed or gasified. Torrefaction also produces a more
homogeneous product, with a low hygroscopicity that is easy to store.”

Biogreen uses the “Spirajoule” pyrolysis technology. This is essentially a screw auger inside an
enclosed Pipe, which has a heat-exchanger on the jacket. The Pyrolysis Gasses are condensed into
Bio-Oil for further manufacturing. There is no recirculation of the non-condensable fraction of the
Tor-Gas, and the system would be quite Energy Demanding.

Biomass Energy Holdings

“New Biomass Energy is a green energy developer that focuses on high quality renewable energy
opportunities that offer immediate contributions to the green economy. The Company’s focus is on
torrefaction of wood to be used by coal burning power plants to supplement the coal and thereby
enhance the green aspects of the plants.

New Biomass Energy’ current developments include torrefaction processing plants in southeast
United States and Canada. Working with local governmental authorities and premier engineers and

32 | P a g e

advisers as well as utilizing capital markets financing has brought these projects in to the early
development stage. Based upon current plans the first of the torrefaction lines should be in
operation by the third quarter of 2010.”

BEH appears to be a Company involved in the development of Torrefaction systems, but there is
little information available to substantiate their Operations. Their website links to an article in the
University of North Carolina’s newsletter – that speaks about UNC wanting to use torrefied wood as
a substitute for coal. As Dr. Chris Hopkins (The developer of the Agri-tech system) is faculty at the
University – it would be reasonable to assume that there is a connection between the two.

Biomass Energy Resources

“Biomass Energy Resources produces an environmentally friendly coal substitute suitable for
consumption by existing and new coal-based power generation facilities. As an environmentally
friendly coal substitute, BER BioCoal produced in volume will set the standard for biomass-based
"clean coal."

Our product will enable power generation clients to:

Preserve and extend the life of their coal fired plant assets
Avoid the carbon tax under a Carbon Cap & Trade system
Meet the renewable energy generation mandates
BER will provide BioCoal samples as well as Proximate, Ultimate, and Ash Chemistry analyses upon
request to prospective power generation clients.”

To date, we have been unable to acquire any samples of product, or substantiate any claims made
with respect to operations.

BTG

“BTG develops technology for the conversion of a wide range of biomass feedstocks into a wide
range of useful products. These technologies are in different stages of development ranging from
R&D activities to commercial application.”

BTG/BTL is a fast pyrolysis Company that focuses on the conversion of Biomass to Liquids and
Gaseous products. Although they do promote Torrefaction, there is little indication of any Operating
Plants or Pilot / Commercial Scale installations.

33 | P a g e

Canadian Bio-Coal

“Canadian Bio-Coal are involved in the preparation of high-grade biochar through the controlled, low
temperature microwave activation of bug killed wood and waste materials providing an emission
free technology for the production of bio-mass char, marketing and transportation services.”

This company is based on the Rotawave Torrefaction Technology, which was developed at the
University of York by Dr. James H Clark
(http://www.yorkshireconcept.org/downloads/Case%20Studies/CP5274%20-
%20YC_A0%20Poster_Ref%2020_Conversion_York_V3.pdf).

Thus far, only a 1 kg laboratory test unit has been operated. From a technical point of view – the
idea that you can use electricity to heat wood particles; initiate the pyrolysis reactions; reclaim the
Tor-Gas to clean and then combust in a boiler to make steam; which is then used to turn a turbine to
make electricity; to generate the microwaves for the process seems quite inefficient.

The fact of the matter is that regardless of the source, a specific amount of input energy is necessary
to undertake the reaction. In addition, conversion rates from thermal to electric are relatively low
(30% or so). As a consequence, we believe that this technology will be simply too expensive and
energy inefficient to gain wide acceptance and implementation. (Even if the residual heat is recycles
to pre-dry the feedstock)

Chemmeco Inc.

“Chemmeco, Inc is the representative of JF BioCarbon, Ltd, Canada to market the continuous
pyrolysis technology and business systems for Indonesia and Southeast Asia Region. Chemmeco, Inc
is a company that concerns in the field of renewable energy with continuous pyrolysis technology.”

Although Chemmeco call their finished product Bio-Coal, it is much closer to Bio-Char (Charcoal).
(See – J F Biocarbon)

Cockerill Maintenance and Ingenierie

“The carbonisation process involves the production of fine quality charcoal from biomass. It is based
on the decomposition of organic matter into volatile matter and fixed carbon (char). The NESA
Multiple Hearth Furnace consists of a series of circular hearths placed one above the other and
enclosed in a refractory-lined steel shell. A vertical rotating shaft through the centre of the furnace
carries arms with rabble blades which stir the charge and move it in a spiral path across each hearth.
Material is fed to the top hearth, and rabbled across it to pass through drop holes to the hearth
below. It passes in this way over and across each hearth to the bottom where the product is
discharged through one or more ports. Heated gases flow counter-currently to heat the charge to
reaction temperature and to carry out the desired reaction.”

34 | P a g e

This technology, in many respects, is the same as Wyssmont. While the transfer mechanism (from
tray to tray) varies between the two, the conceptual design is essentially the same. It is unlikely that
this system will realize Commercial Viability as the Nature of the Torrefaction Process requirements
(temperature regimes) will inevitably lead to significant tar accumulation inside the reactor.

CNF Biofuels

“Inventive Resources, Inc. is in the design and development stages of building a pilot biomass
torrefication processing plant. Current design is for laboratory size production rates for testing and
evaluation. Later pilot designs include production rates or 3 tons per hour and up to one ton of
processed fuel per minute.”

We don’t understand the somewhat confusing statement on their Home Page. One tonne of
processed fuel per minute would be 31.5 Million tonnes per year. (This is quite a claim)

The first issue with this technology is that it is based on starting with Already Pelletised material.
These pellets are then put through an Immersion process, in a hot paraffinic liquid to undertake the
torrefaction process. It is claimed that “The biomass composition continues to take in heat without a
change in temperature”. Other than this defies the basic laws of both thermodynamics and kinetics –
it is contrary to the basic torrefaction process. The point is – that it is the Δt (Change in temperature)
that causes torrefaction. After torrefaction, their process then involves Grinding the Torrefied
Pellets; Running them through a Gasifier; cleaning the syngas; (a portion of which is recycled for
process energy); and finally burning them in a Gas Turbine to make Electricity. They also state that
their product can be densified to “70 pound per cubic foot”. This translates into 1126 kg/m3 – and is
significantly higher (by 40%) than accepted industry standards for the BEST pellets.

We do not know how much of the process relies on the feedstock already being pelletised (flow-
ability characteristics – for example) but if this is a mandated requirement – then this system will be
quite inefficient, both in terms of cost and Energy Balance.

Cree Industries

“Cree Industries is a Native American owned and operated manufacturer of biomass log extrusions
and an exporter of biomass manufacturing and shaping equipment.

With over 400 manufacturing sites located throughout the U.S. and Canada, Cree is positioned to
supply clean & attractive fireplace logs throughout North America.”

Cree Industries is a start-up Company in the Torrefaction Realm. They are currently looking at
available technologies, and have plans to build a Large Commercial Facility in Florida in the Future.
Their business is based on the Sales of Briquette presses, which produce a variety of products.

35 | P a g e

DGEngineering

“Our network provides a lot of experiences in design, manufacturing and operating of rotary kiln
pyrolysis plants.

Our rotary kiln pyrolysis plants are as (wild) pigs are omnivores and give a lot of solutions for
simultaneous disposal of hazardous waste and supporting with energy.
Suggestive and economic is this technology with mono-fractions (like PE, PET, Reifen, PVC, Tetra-
Pack-Fluff, Kabelreste ...). In this case you got by using the correct parameters one or more sellable
products.”

The Primary focus of the DG Engineering system is the output of energy (Steam, Hot Water, warm air
etc.) rather than Bio-Coal. Their Technology is an externally heated rotary kiln, which transfers heat
to the biomass by convection. This system is unlikely to be suitable for Commercial Bio-Coal
production.

Earth Care

“Earth Care Products, Inc. provides Engineered Biomass Solid Fuels (EBSF) plant.
An EBSF plant is analogous to a refinery as it produces multiple biomass-derived fuel types, meeting
the specifications of the end user while optimizing process efficiency.

We conducted the nation's first and largest test burn of torrefied wood in a coal-fired power plant.
ECPI's torrefied wood fuel is "ACTOF." Torrefied wood is the answer to the need for a reliable
alternate renewable fuel.”

The greatest issue with their claims is that their website promotes “their” equipment to undertake
torrefaction; the product used in the “nation’s first test burn” was manufactured at a charcoal
facility (Garnet wood Products in Brandsville) using a vertical, 4-hearth Charcoal Kiln. The other issue
with this burn was that the product cost US$29,000.00 for 50 tonnes (US$580.00 per tonne).

Since this highly publicized event in August 2009, no further developments have come from this
Company. Having reviewed all of the data for this Company’s product, we conclude that it is charcoal
– and not torrefied wood.

EBES AG /Andritz

“EBES AG was founded in 2004 and is a leading supplier of bio fuels on the world market. No matter
what fuel they need, solid or liquid, we find a solution for you and deliver wherever you wish.

EBES AG is a partner for both one-time deliveries and for long-term supply contracts with a precise
delivery schedule.”

In conjunction with Andritz (A large Pelletisation Equipment Manufacturer) EBES are developing a
Torrefaction system that incorporates a rotary-Kiln design. Their focus is on the mass / Energy

36 | P a g e

balance of the process, and they are including Tor-gas recycling in their system. The Pilot plant is
currently being built and tested in Austria, and will be coming on-line by Q4, 2010.

By all accounts – this is one to watch.

ECN

“ECN develops high-level knowledge and technology for a sustainable energy system and transfers
them to the market.”

It could be argued that ECN are the premiere research / development Organisation in the world with
respect to Torrefaction. Virtually all of the Current Technologies being developed are based on the
work of the two principal scientists (Jaap Kiel and P. C. A. Bergman).

Earlier this year, ECN signed a cooperation agreement with Vattenfall / Nuon to build a
“Demonstration” Commercial Reactor. This development will lay the foundations for the
Commercialisation of Future Reactors worldwide.

The technology meets the 4 basic requirements of a Torrefaction reactor:

1) Economic Affordability
2) Flexibility (of feedstock)
3) Durability
4) Simplicity

Undoubtedly – this technology (and others like it) will be the ones that achieve the most success in
the future.

EcoFuels

“The company has been engaged in the development of its torrefication technology for the past year.
This period of research and development has enabled the Company to develop the most energy
efficient process and commercially viable torrefication technology in the world.”

EcoFuels is a development Company that purchase a patented technology from the Estate of the
Canadian Inventor. They have undertaken preliminary engineering and construction of a pilot plant.
Essentially – the technology is identical to the Agri-Tech Reactor (which was developed at the
University of North Carolina)

In addition, they are investigating the opportunity to partner with a large Engineering Firm (AMEC)
to engineer and design / construct a commercial reactor.

The conversion Ratio of their machine is stated at 2.5 tonnes input per 1 tonne of output. Reactor
Cost is estimated at US$5.7 million for 100 kilotonne per year output.

37 | P a g e

Foxcoal

“New energy resources in stabbing, materials and manpower. Or, re-use in the broadest sense. It is
important to us at FoxCoal. So we give a new dimension to the concept of recycling.

FoxCoal claim the domain of Joules Recycling. Recycling Joules with the high calorific content of the
residues used where the material itself does not recycle.

With FoxCoal technique we are able to get everything out of it what's inside, by making full use of the
energy we contribute to a cleaner world in which efficiency is produced. Well so green!” (Note – this
is a literal translation from the Original Dutch)

FoxCoal is a Netherlands Company that took the “least Cost” approach to develop their technology.
Their intent is to incorporate “widely used and proven technologies” to construct their commercial
operation.

By all accounts – it is one of only 2 commercial torrefaction systems currently operating.

G & R Technology Group

“In 2010 the time is ripe. In Regenstauf, Bavaria, the first plant for a CO₂-neutral coal extraction in
accordance with a biomass conversion process called HTC (hydrothermal carbonization) will be built.
GreenCoal or vegetable coal is an alternative to biogas; windmills etc. The calorific value of
GreenCoal corresponds to the energetic characteristics of brown coal.”

As their Abstract says, they utilise the Hydrothermal Carbonisation process (very similar results to
torrefaction) as their primary technology. This process was developed at the Max Planck institute,
http://www.mpikg.mpg.de/english/cont_issues/news/index.html and is one of the competing and
complementary technologies to Torrefaction.

Gazprom

“Gazprom Marketing & Trading (GM&T) is a UK-registered wholly-owned subsidiary of Gazprom

Group, the world's largest gas company. GM&T was created to optimise Gazprom’s energy
commodity assets and downstream expansion through its global marketing and trading network.
GM&T has the full benefit behind it of a huge gas reserves base, transportation network and
intellectual capital.”

There has recently been a lot of “hype” created about a facility in Thailand that the UK Biomass
Manager for Gazprom has created. In spite of repeated requests for samples, and offers to purchase
large volumes of product – nothing was forthcoming. It would appear that this is currently little
more than just building excitement in the Marketplace. None of the claims made could be
substantiated.

38 | P a g e

Hi-Tech Agro

“What distinguishes Hi-tech Agro from other manufacturers is their understanding of the technology
and ability to supply integrated waste processing plants rather than just the individual equipments.

The experience with Hi-tech Agro has till date been a good one.”

The only reference to Torrefaction is a notice that Mr. AK Khater would be presenting a paper on
“Torrefaction and Densification: The Pursuit of Optimal Fuel Quality” at the International Bioenergy
Conference & Expo 2010.

The company has a long history and a large number of installations worldwide of briquetting systems
for biomass feedstocks.

HM3

“HM3 Energy has developed a proprietary process to turn biomass into clean fuel to replace coal in
coal-fired power plants. Existing power plants designed to burn coal can co-fire biomass with coal, or
directly use torrefied biomass in place of coal, drastically reducing carbon and other harmful
emissions such as mercury, sulphur and nitrous oxides.”

HM3 are a Government supported and funded organisation that are working on Commercialisation
of Torrefaction. Currently – a US$241,000.00 Grant will be used to develop a pilot plant. Their
Product is marketed under the Brand “TorrB”. They have undertaken trial co-firing tests (although –
it was only with a few kilograms of product) which were very successful. Very little is known about
this technology, and the developer is unwilling to publish any information.

IFP

“IFP is working with some of the largest utilities in Europe to develop innovative supply chain
relationships to source traditional and new biomass feedstock and accredited liquid bio oils. In an
immature but rapidly developing marketplace, IFP aims to achieve sustainable and dependable
supply of consistent quality product to meet customer needs within the framework of government
legislation. IFP is able to supply biomass for industrial co-firing; regional combined heat and power
projects (CHP), and Energy Service Company (ESCO) concepts for residential heat and power
schemes.”

International Forest Products promote, on their website, “torrefied Wood Pellets” as one of the
commodities they handle. At this point, although they have undertaken some research; they have
not developed a technology, either on their own, or in conjunction with a technology Partner. They
do not have any commercial quantities of Torrefied wood available, and are not likely too in the
foreseeable future.

39 | P a g e

Integro Earth Fuels

“Integro Earth Fuels has done extensive work with UK and South-eastern US utilities and combined
heat-and-power users presenting test materials and the merits of torrefied biomass. The company is
finalizing design of its first commercial facility and is in the process of bringing it online. That facility
will have initial capacity to produce up to 50,000 tons annually. Currently, Integro is finalizing off-
take agreements with European utilities to provide them with a majority of IEF’s supply beginning in
2010. IEF will build 10 additional facilities over the next 6 years to meet the demand from coal-fired
electricity producers.”

Integro was one of the first Companies to announce that they have “the World’s First Commercial
Torrefaction Reactor” in November of 2008. In fact – what they had was a pilot scale Wyssmont
“Turbo-Dryer”. The test facility operated for over a year, and the Pilot Scale reactor was then
returned to Wyssmont. During that time, they were unsuccessful in their Development programme
and, as of yet, have not constructed a Commercial Scale facility. There are however, other
Companies promoting the Wyssmont Technology as “proven”, but this remains to be seen.

International Torrefaction Systems

“International Torrefaction Systems supplies torrefied wood production solutions worldwide. Our
goal is to provide the means for the generation of responsible renewable energy. We believe in
providing renewable and conscientious energy solutions today, while continuing to evolve for the
future.”

Other than a very basic website, there is little information available about this Company. The only
information that it provides is an address:

4320 Green Pl

Wilson, WY 83014 USA

J F Biocarbon

“JF BioCarbon-Chemmeco is a sustainable, renewable solution for today's organic waste problems:

-Fully integrated, self-powered, self contained waste management system

-Revolutionary continuous process pyrolysis technology converts organic material into marketable
products including biochar, torrefied wood, biooil and syngas

-Maintain carbon dioxide neutral emission JF BioCarbon Carbon-Chemmeco a private company, offer
an innovative, environmentally friendly waste management system with a simple solution to world

40 | P a g e

ecology and economy. The easy to operate, low maintenance, cost effective system does not dispose
of, but converts organic residue to sellable products.”

The JF Biocarbon processor started out as a Bio-Char production system has been apparently
“converted” into a torrefaction system. Unfortunately – the two processes are so significantly
different, that it is highly unlikely. Certainly – the Machine can make Bio-Char, but this is yet another
example of the promoters “muddying the waters” between Bio-Coal and Bio-Char. As a small
processing unit – it is on par with the Agri-Tech Equipment, and mostly suitable for “in field”
operations.

Key Flame

After a few months of web presence, that included links to various torrefaction articles in the press;
Keyflame’s website seems to have disappeared. It would appear, at least for the time being, that
they have left the torrefaction realm.

Lantec / Idema

Lantec / Idema are a Spanish Engineering Group. In September of 2009, they purchased a non-
exclusive license to build a 2.5 tonne per hour TORSPYD™ reactor. There was a tremendous amount
of Press and Presence when the deal was signed, however - As of the date of publication (December
2010) – there has been no further progress reports issued. Our understanding is that it has taken this
long to receive planning consent for the facility, and that Construction will begin in Q4, 2010. This is
one to watch.

Matric

“The Mid-Atlantic Technology, Research and Innovation Centre are a group of about 150 staff,
including research scientists and engineers. It was formed after the Downsizing of a Union Carbide
Facility. MATRIC has a focus on developing intellectual properties for commercial and industrial
customers and adding value throughout the technical services, research, development, engineering
and commercialization processes.”

This organisation has designed large pyrolysis systems, and a 100,000 tonne per year torrefaction
system, specifically tailored to produce torrefied pellets for the European Market. The basic principle
of their reactor is the same as ECN and Thermya – that is – a gravity fed, counterflow, packed bed
reactor. Although there are few details, one could reasonably assume that the configuration is
similar to their “Cascading Baffle Pyrolysis Reactor”.

41 | P a g e

At an anticipated cost of US$12 Million for a 40 kt output – it is well above the realm of economic
reality; however – this will change with economies of scale.

New Biomass Energy

“New Biomass Energy is a green energy developer that focuses on high quality renewable energy
opportunities that offer immediate contributions to the green economy. The Company’s focus is on
torrefaction of wood to be used by coal burning power plants to supplement the coal and thereby
enhance the green aspects of the plants.

New Biomass Energy’ current developments include torrefaction processing plants in southeast
United States and Canada. Working with local governmental authorities and premier engineers and
advisers as well as utilizing capital markets financing has brought these projects in to the early
development stage. Based upon current plans the first of the torrefaction lines should be in
operation by the third quarter of 2010”.

If this Company has undertaken any actual development of a torrefaction system – then it is one of
the best kept secrets in the torrefaction World. Attempts to find a Phone Number or email address
have been unsuccessful, and enquiries sent through their web form have gone unanswered. The
Managing Director is a Billionaire Rabbi with international business holdings.

New Earth Renewable Energy

“NewEarth Renewable Energy is a privately held, Seattle-based, renewable energy company. We

have a proprietary technology, Ecological Pyrolysis-Torrefaction (EPT) that fully taps the potential in
biochar. Through this technology, we produce two renewable, carbon-negative alternatives to fossil
fuel: biochar (E-Coal), and bio crude oil (E-Oil). Unlike most fuels of the future, ours are ready for
global deployment today.”

If ever there was an award for “Smooth Talking and Fast Walking” then this Company would win it
hands down. 18 Months ago it started promoting its product (Bio-Coal) under the name “Eco-Pyro
Torrefaction”. Then – it decided that it had transcended “old fashioned” torrefaction – which made
only “one” product – for its NEW “Ecological Pyrolysis-Torrefaction” that gives you “three” products.

In reality – this process is ANYTHING but new. It is based on a Canadian Pyrolysis Technology
(Pyrovac) that was mothballed several years ago. Unfortunately – the physical plant has been
subsequently cannibalised, and isn’t anywhere near operational status.

The shift from Torrefied Pellets to Bio-Char is just the most recent transition of the Companies
“appearance” after being exposed in the Torrefaction world.

42 | P a g e

Renewable Fuel Technologies

“Renewable Fuel Technologies is an energy company that sells carbon neutral solid fuel – BioCoal –
to coal plants that have existing power purchase agreements.

The company has the proprietary technology and engineering expertise to develop BioCoal
processing equipment that can be mass produced from commercially available materials and
processes.”

RFT appears to be yet another Company that is at this juncture long on Hype – and short on
substance. Their “systems” consist of assembling “BioCoal processing equipment that can be mass
produced from commercially available materials and processes.” Every attempt to do this in the
past has resulted in failure. There is no reason to believe that this will be any different. The
application of a unique process into the off the shelf technology would be the game changer for
them.

River Basin Energy

“River Basin Energy, Inc. is headquartered in Denver, Colorado and was founded in 2008. The
company is commercialising its process for biomass and low rank coal and is venture backed by
Emerald Technology Ventures, a global cleantech investor based in Toronto and Zurich.”

Being backed by a Large Clean-Tech Fund certainly has its advantages, especially when that Fund has
direct connections to a Utility like Ontario Power Generation. They have a Demonstration Plant that
is operating in Wyoming, and has, according to reports, “successfully dehydrated a variety of raw
feed coals and biomass chips”. Their Demonstration unit processes 200 Kilograms per hour, and they
are currently accumulating volumes of torrefied product for testing. They are “adapting” their
10,000 ton per year coal processing plant to handle biomass. This Company is also previously
marketed under the name “FMI NEW COAL” http://www.fmifuel.com/index.html

Rotawave

“Rotawave was established in the UK in 2002 as an SME. The company specializes in the creation and
development of new technology for producing added value products and energy from a wide variety
of solid organic wastes and low value feedstocks. The new technology is based on continues feed,
flexible microwave processes. Current business activities include the treatment and recovery of
valuable products from drilling muds from oil feeds. Achievements include the development and
commercialisation of a new smokeless fuel manufacturing operation, expanding the new business to
a turnover of £1.5 million per annum in 3 years. “

To produce the bio-coal, the company will use the Rotawave Targeted Intelligent Energy System
(TIES), which is a patented, microwave-based, closed, continuous feed process, developed and

43 | P a g e

owned by the UK-based Energy Environmental Group. TIES is used for the low-energy, high-volume
torrefaction of forest and other biomass. The closed system process generates limited emissions.

The total production of bio-coal will amount to about 120,000 tonnes/year and is already pre-sold to
an international broker. It’s estimated that up to 500,000 cubic-metres/year of fibre will be required
for the facility.

At first glance, the Rotawave Technology appears to make infinite sense. After all, Microwaves are a
very efficient way to impart energy into a moisture containing solid. The issue however – is that the
process converts energy several times to maintain its energy balance. In effect; Biomass is heated by
Microwaves, which produces Volatiles, which are burned, to make steam, to drive a generator, to
power the microwave unit. We believe that this technology will go the way of the Microwave /
Vacuum Kiln that was to be the “next” generation of Lumber and timber drying. In addition, at an
average feedstock price of £25.00 per tonne, and a conversion ration of 4.16:1, this puts the final
product out of the realm of commercial reality, for anything other than free or very low-cost
feedstock. After much press earlier on this year, about a new facility in Terrace BC, all has gone
quiet.

Sea2Sky Corporation
(Not to be confused with Sea2Sky Energy UK Ltd.)

“Sea 2 Sky Corp. (OTCBB: SSKY) is a development-stage renewable bio-energy company

headquartered in Seattle, Washington. The Company’s primary focus is to deliver alternative energy
solutions to Fortune 1000 companies, governmental agencies and countries around the globe. Sea 2
Sky intends to be a manufacturer of biomass energy products for industrial use in North America and
Western European countries as a fuel and energy alternative.”

Although there is a great web presence, and this Company “appears” to be well along its
development path; it is little more than a Stock play or “pump and dump”. As of Q2, 2010, virtually
the entire board of Directors resigned; all agreements were cancelled, and the Company had
significant debt against no income. The latest reports made vague comments about negotiating a
sale of the Company to another firm, whose name was so generic that it was impossible to verify or
validate. As of late November 2010, Sea2Sky Corporation “purchased” ecoTECH Energy Group. This
purchase was made with existing S2S Shares – and ended up being a reverse takeover by ecoTECH.
No further details have been announced on future projects.

Stramproy-Green

“Stramproy Group, originating from Machinefabriek Stramproy, is an innovative and leading

company with an extensive experience of more than 35 years.

44 | P a g e

We are active in multidisciplinary projects in a broad market and focus on the design, engineering
and realisation of systems, machines and equipment for industrial processes and on the development
of various process technologies.”

Stramproy Green Technologies made several “game changing” announcements in 2009. They had
secured an EPC Contract with 4Energy Invest to build a torrefaction reactor at 4Energy’s Amel power
Station; they had started development of their own CHP plant (with torrefaction technology
installed) in Steenwyck; and they had entered a Contract to Supply RWE with 90,000 tonnes per year
of Bio-Coal. Unfortunately – the system for 4Energy was never successfully commissioned, and the
EPC Contract was cancelled in June of 2010. There have been no further announcements from the
Company since then.

SubCoal

“The Subcoal® technology concerns several proprietary and state-of-the-art process and application
technologies to convert and process cellulose/plastic fractions into high-quality alternative fuels for
sustainable energy recovery”.

The Subcoal products are developed to be co-combusted in coal or gas fired industrial furnaces. The
products are ideally suited for co-combustion in, Cement kilns, Lime kilns, and Power plants.
http://www.managenergy.net/download/nr41.pdf

While not specifically Torrefaction, the SubCoal process utilises a multi-step process, to convert
residue and waste products from Paper Sludge into High-energy pellets for co-firing with Coal. The
process involves dewatering; drying and compaction, to less than 7% moisture content – and results
in a pellet with a CV of 23.7 GJ/tonne.

SunCoal

“The company develops, builds, and operates plants (Biomass-to-Coal plants) that process biomass to
a carbon-rich, dry solid. SunCoal can be efficiently burned or further refined to diesel. Alternatively, it
can also be used as a source material for the industrial production of, for example, tires, fertilizer,
wax and antifreeze.”

Terradyne Energy

“Heat-Lock Technology can easily be adapted to your Companies thermal generation furnace. We are
currently developing a torrefaction process to replace coal as an energy source”.

Like many “promoters”, Terradyne Energy has jumped on the Torrefaction Bandwagon. Their angle
is to promote the benefits of their product – without providing any substantiation of their process.

45 | P a g e

Requests for samples, which were to be sent as chips, rather than pellets, (presumably because they
were unable to pelletise the product) resulted only in promises, but not delivery. By all accounts –
their product is charcoal – and not torrefied wood.

Terra Green Energy

“Terra Green Energy, LLC is a torrefaction technology licensing company.

Terra Green Industries, LLC is the builder, owner and operator of the Commercial Torrefaction
Demonstration Facility that is being built in McKean County, Pennsylvania. This team has been
working on torrefaction since early in 2008.”

Terra Green is a promoter of the Wyssmont “Turbo-Dryer” as a torrefaction Reactor. Like Integro
Earth Fuels (who tested Wyssmont’s Pilot plant for over a year) it is highly unlikely that they will
succeed. The greatest challenge is the removal of accumulated tars in the tor-gas, which condense
inside the reactor.

Thermogen Industries

“Thermogen Industries is operated by Cate Street Capital, Inc., a Portsmouth, New Hampshire-based
investment fund and operating company specializing in “green” technologies and environmentally
sustainable development projects. Thermogen Industries is a multi-faceted manufacturing company
that utilizes cutting edge technology to produce bio-based products for energy generation and
commercial applications. Environmentally responsible products and manufacturing practices are at
the heart of our company and the core of our business. At Thermogen, we work with today’s top
industry leaders and scientists to continuously improve and refine our green and environmentally
sustainable line of products.”

This Company appears to be a marketing arm for the Agri-Tech system. Both Companies are utilising
the same multi screw-feed torrefaction reactor technology, which was developed at North Carolina
State University. Published information indicates a 3:1 conversion ratio (feedstock to finished
product) which is indicative of a bio-char production – but too cost-intensive for a torrefaction
process.

Thermya SA

“THERMYA is an engineering company dedicated to design, develop and build plants to produce
Carbon and energy from “distillation” of organic solids. THERMYA offers innovative and
environmentally-friendly alternatives for the recovery or recycling of wood, viscose, bagasse, chicken
litter, etc...”

46 | P a g e

Thermya have a very well designed and tested pilot plant in Bordeaux. Their technology mirrors that
of ECN and MATRIC, insofar as it is a packed bed, vertical column, which utilises a counterflow of hot
gasses to drive the process.

Their technology is highly likely to succeed in the marketplace – however – their current financial
situation (they were put into receivership in September of 2009) is a barrier to their success.
Certainly – once their first Licensee (Lantec/Idema) completes the Commercial Reactor – they will be
able to roll it out worldwide. It meets all of the requirements of Affordability, Durability, flexibility
and functionality.

TK Energi AS

“During many years TK Energi has obtained a high level of experience in finding solutions to design
and manufactory complex thermochemical equipment such as gasification, torrefaction and handling
systems for biomass, waste and other materials with carbon content. TK Energy can also offer
handling systems including Pre-Handling, Drying, Torrefaction and Pressurized Feeding”

TK Energy is a company headed up by Thomas Koch. While their website promotes the
implementation of Torrefaction; further discussions have revealed that they believe it to be too
costly and inefficient a process to be economically viable, and are now promoting the drying of
wood chips, at the power station, utilising low-grade surplus heat.

Topell

“Topell Energy is a Dutch, privately funded, clean technology company which has developed a cutting
edge process for the production of high value solid bio-fuel from woody biomass. This process is
generally known as torrefaction and the solid bio-fuel is usually referred to as torrefied biomass.”

Topell were among the first Companies to receive funding by a major Utility (RWE) for the
development of their technology. It is based on work done by Polow Energy Systems, utilising the
British designed “Torbed” dryer. Topell have now broken ground on a Commercial Facility (again – in
a joint-venture with RWE) and will likely have that facility operational in the next 12 to 16 months.
They have assembled a highly credentialed team of experts to assist them with the development,
and will undoubtedly succeed in making Bi-Coal in large volumes. The only question that remains
unanswered is the economic viability of the system, as it carries a significant CapEx.

Torkapparater AB

“Torkapparater offers turn-key systems for drying, cooling, pyrolysis and other thermal processing of
solid materials.

47 | P a g e

Since 1937 we have delivered a thousand plants adapted to a hundred different type of material. Our
customers are found in most branches, around the world. Welcome to our slowly revolving world!”

This technology was recently released at “World Bioenergy 2010”. It utilises a large drum drying unit,
which has been specifically adapted to operate at around 300° C to torrefy wood chips.

With a long history in the drying industry, this Company is one that may very well succeed in
cracking the code for torrefaction.

Torrcoal

“The idea behind Torr ® Coal is abundant in biomass, but because of their physical and chemical
properties is not suitable as a biofuel suitable for power generation and / or for use in industry.

The business philosophy of Torr-Coal Group is characterized by concern for

• a minimal environmental impact

• maximum reuse of valuable resources
• maximum utilization of the energy content
• minimization and optimization of transportation”

TorrCoal is one of only two commercial operations in existence. Their process converts SRF (Solid
Recovered Fuel) into a powder that can be burned in Power Stations. Certainly they have proven the
concept, but their technology has not, as of yet, received wide market acceptance and
implementation.

Torrproc

Torrsys / Bepex

“Torrsys is a development stage spin-off company of Bepex International that is working with
utilities, raw biomass suppliers, and investors to bring to market industrial-scale biomass torrefaction
and densification production plants that will produce biocoal, a carbon neutral solid fuel that can be
used by existing coal power plants.

The genesis of Torrsys began within Bepex International, a 100-year-old Minneapolis-based process
development and industrial-scale process equipment company, whose clients include some of the
world’s most well-known food, chemical, polymer and renewable companies.

Since early 2007, we have been developing and refining the process, and today we are a global
leader, with a 1.44 ton / day, continuous-phase biomass torrefaction and densification pilot plant.
Combined we have produced 30 tons of biocoal and have successfully conducted pilot scale
pulverized coal combustion trials at 10% and 30% co-firing ratios.”

Torsyss is the Marketing Brand for the technology Developed by Bepex. Extensive work was
conducted during 2008 - 2009 to design, develop and test a semi-commercial reactor system. While

48 | P a g e

there is a lot of data available about the results of their tests
(http://www.xcelenergy.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/docs/BepexInternational-RD3-4-
Milestone1Report.pdf) there is little information available about the technology. Initial inquiries
revealed that the cost of their system, for 100 kt per year, would be in the realm of US$25 million.

Transnational Technologies

“James Arcate, owner & manager of Transnational Technology LLC, has been promoting Torrefied
Wood as a renewable fuel for energy recovery, waste minimization and a replacement for fossil
fuels.”

This is yet another Company that is promoting the use of the Wyssmont “Turbo-Dryer” as a
torrefaction reactor. Like the others – it is highly unlikely to succeed.

Vega Promotional Systems

“Vega Biofuels, Inc. was formed to pursue the production and sale of biofuel products throughout the
world. “

There was great fanfare created in late 2009 about Vega utilising “Special Torrefaction Technology”
in China. They announced the establishment of 10 Bio-Coal production facilities in conjunction with
unverifiable Chinese Corporation. This is another case of vague “press releases” that cannot be
substantiated in any way.

Verdant Energy Solutions

“Verdant Energy Solutions provides "Bio-Coal", a 100% renewable fuel alternative to fossil coal used
for electric generating utilities world-wide; substantially reducing CO2 and other harmful greenhouse
gas emissions.

Legislatively mandated CO2 reductions have created a market need for our product. No technology
currently exists to remove CO2 from smoke stacks. Switching to clean burning Bio-Coal, provides
compatibility with today's existing energy infrastructure and the opportunity to meet tomorrow's
increasingly stringent emission reduction targets in a cost-effective manner.

Verdant Energy Solutions is currently developing its Bio-Coal production capability in biomass-rich
regions such as Brazil, to serve the growing need for a non-fossil fuel alternative that can be co-fired
with coal, to achieve reductions in CO2 emissions.”

Verdant Energy Solutions have an excellent website that “talks the talk” very well. Unfortunately –
there is no substance behind it, and little validation of their process or products. Again – it would

49 | P a g e

appear that they are just another “me too” Company – that has jumped on the Torrefaction
Bandwagon.

Complimentary Technologies

While not specifically Torrefaction, the Technologies listed below are complimentary, and include
Hydrothermal Carbonisation; Pyrolysis, Steam Explosion, etc. They are included in this report for
comparative analysis.

Polow www.polow.nl
Jacques Poldervaart
Best Energies www.bestenergies.com
James Schreck
BioWare http://www.bioware.com.br

Next step bio fuels www.nextstepbiofuels.com

Kevin Dretzka
Bio Coal India www.biocoalindia.com
Ramit Plyush
York Energy http://www.yorkenergy.ca/
Matthew Fox
CDS-group http://www.cds-group.co.uk/
Graham Bird

Genesis Industries http://egenindustries.com/

John Gelwicks
Biochar Systems LLC http://www.biocharsystems.com/
Jim Fournier
Carbon Char Group http://www.carbonchar.com/

Biochar Products http://www.biocharproducts.com/

EcoTechnologies Group LLC http://www.ecotechnologies.com/ Steve

Parker
R&A Energy Solutions LLC http://www.randaenergysolutions.com/ Joel

Keller

BioLake
http://www.biolake.nl/index_en.html Hans
Bais
Bio3D http://www.bio3d.eu/index2.php Sébastien
Roux
Buehler-Aeroglide http://www.aeroglide.com/biofuels-dryers-coolers.php

Ava-Co2 http://www.ava-co2.com

Jan Vyskcoil

50 | P a g e



University Researchers

University of Georgia http://www.biorefinery.uga.edu/biomasspreprocessing.html

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory http://www.pnl.gov/

Idaho National Laboratory https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=255&mode=2

Eindhoven University of Technology http://w3.wtb.tue.nl/en/

Leeds University http://www.engineering.leeds.ac.uk/erri/people/jones/jones.shtml

University of North Carolina https://www.kenan-

flagler.unc.edu/News/DetailsNewsPage.cfm?id=4193&menu=cetv

University of Jyväskylä https://www.jyu.fi/it/en

Energy Centre of the Netherlands http://www.ecn.nl/home/

Umeå University http://www.umu.se/english

Duke University http://www.duke.edu/

51 | P a g e



Industry Associations

Dutch Torrefaction Association http://www.dutchtorrefactionassociation.eu/ (In Dutch)

International Torrefaction Association http://www.internationaltorrefactionassociation.com

52 | P a g e



Existing Operations Worldwide

Europe

Torr-coal – Operating Commercial Facility

Fox-Coal – Operating Semi-Commercial Facility

ECN – Pilot plant

THERMYA – Pilot Plant

Topell – Pilot Plant – Commercial Plant in Construction

Stramproy-Green – Commercial Plant – non-operational

4Energy Invest – Commercial Plant – Non operational

North America

Integro – Pilot Plant – no longer operational

River Basin – Pilot Plant

Earth care Products – Converted Charcoal Kiln

Who will succeed?

Topell – their plant will ultimately get up and running. They have more than enough money behind
them (courtesy of RWE) to make it happen.

Airless Systems – with a billionaire investor behind them, Airless will undoubtedly succeed in getting
their technology to work. It is highly unlikely that it will be adopted universally – as the costs will far
exceed any commercial sensibility.

ECN – With Vattenfall / Nuon funding the development of a Demonstration Reactor, this will
ultimately succeed. It is also among the top 3 to be implemented on a widespread basis.

Thermya – In spite of their current financial difficulties, Thermya have the potential to be a major
player in the Torrefaction Industry.

MATRIC – With a similar process to Thermya and ECN, Matric will be one of the leaders in the
Industry.

53 | P a g e

Who will fail?

Most other Companies will fail to achieve widespread success. This is partly due to their approach to
torrefaction, but mostly due to a lack of understanding of the basic mechanisms involved.

54 | P a g e



Conclusions

The Investment Community is currently in a state of mass confusion with respect to this technology.
This is brought about by so many claims, from so many Companies, that it is virtually impossible to
know what is real, and what is an illusion.

Uncertainty over basic information – such as the difference between Bio-Coal and Bio-Char, only
exacerbates the situation further. In addition to this, there have been several claims of the “World’s
First” Commercial torrefaction reactor (Integro; Earth care, etc.) After several false starts in the
Industry, there was great promise held for 4Energy Invest / Stramproy Green Technologies. The
simple fact remains however, that although the Systems were to be operational in December, 2009
– they are yet to be fully commissioned and operational a year later. Topell/RWE is continuing their
development path – and will ultimately produce commercial volumes of product – the cost of their
technology however – is such that the value of the finished product may well exceed sensible
economic levels in the long-term.

The Ultimate winners will be those Companies that are able to get their product validated by the
Major Utilities who will be their Customers. Many Companies right now, are so focussed on getting
their systems to work in an economical manner, that they forget the fact that the product they are
making needs to meet some fairly stringent specifications.

Those Companies that are taking a scientific approach to the process and ultimate product will end
up as the Long-Term Winners. Those that focus solely on “system design” without considering
Product Specifics are destined to failure.

GLOSSARY

ACTOF “Ablazing Clean Torrefied Organic Fuel”

ASTM American Society for Testing Materials

AS Australian Standard

BDT Bone Dry Tonne

CV Calorific Value

Gj Gigajoule

Kg/m3 Kilograms per cubic metre

55 | P a g e

PCI Pulverised Coal Injection

Tor-Gas Gas Fraction evolved during Torrefaction

TW Torrefied Wood

References

(1) Torrefaction to improve biomass fuel properties By: Jaap Kiel and Patrick Bergman, ECN
November 29, 2004

(2) MANAGING ASH CONTENT AND -QUALITY IN HERBACEOUS BIOMASS: AN ANALYSIS FROM
PLANT TO PRODUCT Robert R. Bakker and H.W. Elbersen, Wageningen University &
Research Centre (WUR)

(3) Gleb Bagramov ECONOMY OF CONVERTING WOOD TO BIOCOAL, Lappeenranta, 2010

(4) Torrefaction for biomass upgrading into commodity fuels – Jaap Kiel IEA Bioenergy Task 32
workshop “Fuel storage, handling and preparation and system analysis for biomass
combustion technologies”, Berlin, 7 May 2007

(5) Torrefaction for Biomass Co-firing in existing Coal-fired power stations. “BIOCOAL” P.C.A.
BERGMAN; A.R. BOERSMA; R.W.R. ZWART; J.H.A.KIEL ECN July 2005

Post Script

About the Authors

Richard Walton is a professional Engineer who has worked around the globe in the Forestry, Lumber,
timber and Building Industry. For the past 2 years he has been intimately involved in torrefaction, at
a global scale, and is considered by many to be one of the leading experts in the field of
Commercialisation and Implementation. Details can be found at www.sea2skyenergy.co.uk

George van Bommel is a highly experienced Engineer and Systems integrator, with enormous world-
wide experience in the energy and commodity Business. His Company - BioTorTech (Biomass
Torrefaction Technologies) or BTT is an independent specialist consulting firm for biomass
conversion technologies. Their mission is to enable our clients to use the best available torrefaction
technologies for leveraging their biomass potential. George can be reached at info@biotortech.com
or through his website - www.biotortech.com

We look forward hearing from you, if you have any questions or enquiries, don't hesitate to contact
us.

56 | P a g e